Call Us
08000 224 224
Issue 54 (January 2001)
More relations arriveMotoring to employment rightsAsk not what the union can do for you...Compromising positionsTrade unions cross the first CAC hurdlesBut what does it all mean?Sauce for the goose not the gander
This case provides a useful guide on considering employee status, and in particular the interpretation of the 'control' test.
Davidson, was employed as a temporary employee under a contract for services with an employment agency, MCG Ltd to work at Motorola's plant. He was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing. He decided to bring an unfair dismissal claim against Motorola.
Under the Employment Rights Act, an employee is defined as someone who works under a contract of service or a contract of apprenticeship. The current approach taken by the courts is for them to consider a number of factors before reaching a conclusion on the employees status.
The Tribunal decided at a preliminary hearing that Davidson was an employee of Motorola, and could pursue an unfair dismissal claim. Motorola appealed, and argued that the only issue was whether they exercised sufficient control over Davidson to give rise to an employer-employee relationship.
The EAT said there were a number of factors which indicated that Motorola had effective control over Davidson, such as he used their tools, wore their uniform, booked holidays and had to raise any grievances through Motorola. In fact, Motorola suspended Davidson, and went on to terminate their relationship.
Motorola argued that the key issue was whether they had legal power to control Davidson. The EAT stated that under the terms of Davidson's contract he was obliged to attend work at Motorola's request. Although, MCG Ltd had similar or greater powers of control over Davidson, this did not mean Motorola did not have sufficient control over Davidson to satisfy the 'control' test. Davidson was an employee of Motorola and they would be liable if he had been unfairly dismissed.